It reminds me of magazine articles from the early 80s that proclaimed a second "ice age". Al Gore profits off this hoax so he definitely wants to keep up the game as long as possible. By the way, if anyone is interested in buying "carbon credits" please contact me. I am setting up an environmental services company that sells carbon credits. I am going to laugh my way all the way to the bank. Each credit is $1000 and will offset your environment impact. We suggest $1000 per $10,000 of gross income. So if you earn $120,000 annually send me $12,000 and tell your liberal friends you are "carbon neutral". We also mandate an "excess power usage fee" which is $1000 per additional 1000 SQFT for all property owned over 2000 SQFT which you can legally own without penalty. This includes vacation homes as well as your primary home. I will plant a tree or two when I get around to it.

Why am I surpirsed that there are people who still think climate change is BS. Its probably the same people that think Obama doesn't have a birth certificate, Carbon Dating is a trick set up by Satan, and there were no Jews in the twin towers.

Of course the climate is changing, always has, always will. As to the question of whose fault, who cares, conservative principles and most conservatives at least at the core of their former (pre-christian right) philosophy has always been that of conservation. The left on the other side believe anything corporation-y is evil but fails to see the pitfalls of energy solutions like wind and solar while demonizing the intermediate solutions that guarantee a cleaner future and have in-fact reduced emissions by providing a clean and more economically feasible solution to coal (natural gas). However, bogus-science on both sides is funded by all types of organizations and corporations looking to gain or maintain a foothold in the marketplace.

I think a broadly supported principle of conservationism and trying to reduce our footprint through intelligent planning and technological advancement would be best but idiots from both sides of the spectrum inhibit this activity with their crap rhetoric.

"^Have you never made a mistake? If you have , then by your and Rob's logic, no one should ever be able trust anything else you say."

haha. classic.

there were scientists in the 70's, who claimed an ice age was coming. the article even mentions that. just like today though, some believe in global warming, and others dont. I will continue to recycle, and do my part to try and keep earth as clean as possible, within reason. but I am by no means buying into global warming as Al Gore states it is.

Since NASA said the hockey stick isn't right are you willing to say science is a living thing constantly moving and evolving with evidence?

That said, I'm still of the opinion good stewardship is far more important than debating the science or trying to blame weather events on AGW in order to create and funnel money towards legislative pet projects.

It's not 'some' scientists believe in global warming caused by man and 'some' don't. That argument is over. 95+% of scientists know it is. What to do about it and at what expense/benefit is another discussion. Who is going to do something about it is yet another discussion as we obviously have little control over what countries like China do.

The article was simply an example of corporate interests trying to put out junk science on the issue in the interests of the corp.

What makes "no sense" about what I said Tim? They both said "since they (scientists) were wrong about the ice age in the 80's, they must be wrong today". I think it's pretty cut and dry what I said and I didn't use any words that someone with higher than a fourth grade education couldn't understand.

But hey, you got to use your cute little pic, so you must feel cool now.

I think most logical people know the Earth is warming... and cooling...it's cyclic.

The unfortunate have been duped into a religion professing man is the cause . Much like televangelists, they've been able cash in on what will eventually be proven as one the greatest hoaxes of all time.....grievously, probably not before they heap a heavy financial strain upon not just the fools who buy into it, but also the wise who see through the smoke.... all under the guise of 'saving the planet'.

How conceited must these people be to actually believe they can control the weather.

No, Barry, what's unfortunate is fools like you buying into a small minority of the scientific community (many of which are financed by big oil - read the story!) believing that man has little to do with the huge increase in global warming over a short time and not being willing to do ANYTHING about it. You fools are in the minority but are, unfortunately, loud.

Lets all just look at this from a common sense stand point. If after what I say you still want to buy into the lie of global warming then that is your prerogative. First we are told that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. Let's just pretend that ridiculous number is true. Lets also forget that 40 years ago the scientists were telling us there would be another ice age because the planet was cooling.

If in fact the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and we have been able to accurately track the temperature around the globe for say 75 years. Do you think that a 75 year sample out of 4.6 billion is even close to a representative sample? It is so ultimately stupid and insane that it makes me want to kick Al Gores ass for being a lying ass all for the almighty dollar. Just like evolution is taught in every school text book global warming will be tossed down our throats the same way. When you repeat a lie over and over it ultimately becomes the truth by default. In Obamas 2nd term he said that climate change would be his top priority. It made me want to throw up. These clowns are pathetic and so is anyone that buys into this voodoo science.

By the very fact that Flight thinks the 4.6 billion years old planet is "ridiculous" makes arguing about global warming with him pointless. We need to try and start with something simpler. Basic Math, move up to Calculus, begining science move up to chemistry, eventually hit carbon dating and then.... "THE BIBLE DOESN'T MENTION CARBON DATING SO IT CAN'T BE TRUE!!!!! I'M NOT LISENTING LALALALALALALA"

Scientists have been able to acuratly measure the temperature of the earth for a thousand years back by drilling into the ice at the north pole and determining how cold it was when that ice was frozen and carbon dating that ice. But that's all based on "Science" and we know how you feel about that.

Flight, if you think we only have a clue about earth temps for the past 75 years, you need to go educate yourself quite a bit more. However, as mentioned, for someone who still won't accept the evidence of how old the earth is and still thinks the earth is something like 6000 years old, I'm thinking any scientific education at all is a complete waste on you. You're better off staying out of any discussions like this or anything else on science and stick to doing what you do best - reading and reciting your bible.

You are comparing a bunch of "scientists" trying to do a snow job on society without really understanding it themselves to a couple of guys on the street(or internet) just having a discussion. That is a stupid comparison.

If your doctor told you you had brain cancer and he had some great new treatment for you and had you go through it, bought himself a nice island somewhere warm from the proceeds off you then said "oh, you never had brain cancer, sorry"...then 10 years later said you had liver cancer and said he had some great new treatment for you.......What would you do?

GW is not a religious issue. Its a question in science that has an answer that cannot be proven, or measured. It cannot be known. Extrapolating carbon dates known for a hundred years out to thousands or millions is guesswork at best. There is no way to calibrate these measurements to insure accuracy. There just isnt enough real data to make an understood conclusion.

The modern idea of scientific theories being true until proven false is stupid at best. Things we dont know are "unknown" until an answer is discovered. Unknown things do not become certainty based on accepted speculation. It does not even increase its probability.

I live a pretty green life conpared to most. I believe in being good stewards of our planet. However, the same "science" used to "prove" man made global warming is destroying the planet, could be used to say that, thanks to global warming, the planet was saved from another ice age.

The correct course of action for the scientific communinty is to tell the truth and say,

"when looking at humanity's carbon footprint, and our current understanding of carbon in the atmosphere, it is theoretically possible that our footprint is affecting the environment. While we cannot be certain of this, we believe it is prudent to take measures as if it were true, just in case it is. The fruit of these measures would be a positive result for humanity, regardless of its acutal effect on the global climate cycles."

However, that kind of honesty about what they know doesnt keep grant money flowing in, nor does it prompt the average Joe to a lifestyle change.

I think the fervor and absoluteness of the man-made global warming movement is what leads many to be suspicious. Statements like "the science is concluded", "the argument is over...", "95% of scientists", etc. are not helpful to meaningful discussion. It's dismissive of anyone even slightly skeptical. Such statements are used and intended to shut down discussion and put down those that are skeptical or have a different view point. In reality, good science is never concluded but instead is always questioning, exploring and willing to review & discuss different viewpoints or skepticism.

Some skepticism is valid, reasonable and worthwhile. Is there not hypocrisy in Al Gore, the guy with the Tennessee mansion that uses more energy than 99% of the rest of the houses in the state, who sells Current TV for hundreds of millions to a business from a country who's economic interest is nearly completely based on oil? Or Leonardo DeCapio proclaiming to "fly around the world doing good for the environment"? Or even WW'rs denouncing corporate oil interests yet enjoying 5 gallon per hour boats after towing them to the lake with 10mpg trucks. The fact is, both the issue and the solutions are vastly complicated.

Is the earth warming? It would appear so recently. But even measuring this absolutely and concretely is a complex and difficult task. Is man responsible? This would be even more difficult and complex to fully understand. While the greenhouse gas theory may have some validity, there are also compelling theories about sun activity that would explain warming & cooling of the earth's atmosphere. The truth would be that this is a very complex issue that would defy any simple explanation or any one single explanation or cause. Hence, the skepticism when a movement pushes the man-made conclusion and attempts to trounce & belittle anyone who is not on board.

Is less pollution better? Absolutely. Reducing man's impact on the earth's ecosystems - a good thing. I don't think anyone would argue with this. Man's progress in using the earth's resources more wisely will undoubtedly continue and is necessary. Minimizing pollution is an important part of this discussion.

Global warming is just another debate like guns/gun-control, the national deficit, getting the mix of taxes & social programs right, etc. These are very difficult issues with no one cause or no one simple solution. There is not one or two easy things to do that will solve global warming or any of the rest of these issues.

Going back to the original post, why should it be surprising that corporations spend to protect and continue their interests? Is this any different than other groups doing the same? Public unions & elections, dictators using country resources to remain in power, the academic (usually 80%+ democratic/liberal) science community reinforcing an issue which attracts substantial government & foundation funding (necessary to continue their jobs) are just some examples.

To simplify the debate into one side is wrong and one side is not only continues the distraction from real meaningful discussion and viable solutions. Should we ignore man-made pollution? No. Should we abandon all human carbon burning activities? Not even remotely possible. The outcome lies in the vast in-between and is significantly more complicated.

But then, it wouldn't be as fun to stop the blame and ridicule game would it?

GW is not a religious issue. Its a question in science that has an answer that cannot be proven, or measured. It cannot be known.

Precisely why polluting the atmosphere of the planet and believing with near certainty that it can't affect weather is a bad stance. You need good solid science to prove that it isn't a problem before deciding it's OK to possibly destroy the environment for not only future generations, but for those who are most susceptible to the consequences.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be concerned that the amount of pollution that modern society is capable of and does generate could have dire consequences. You don't need to prove it to be cognisant that the amount of pollutants we create is potentially a problem.

You don't need to prove it to be cognisant that the amount of pollutants we create is potentially a problem.

I agree, but lying about its certainty is not the way to gain support, either. You know as well as I do that we are not being force-fed the potential of this concern. We have created an industry profitting off of false scientific certainty of this concern.

Precisely why polluting the atmosphere of the planet and believing with near certainty that it can't affect weather is a bad stance. You need good solid science to prove that it isn't a problem before deciding it's OK to possibly destroy the environment for not only future generations, but for those who are most susceptible to the consequences.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be concerned that the amount of pollution that modern society is capable of and does generate could have dire consequences. You don't need to prove it to be cognisant that the amount of pollutants we create is potentially a problem.

But you realize the emissions control technologies to reduce criteria pollutants and air toxics increase greenhouse gases. So pollution controls to reduce impacts like asthma and acid rain have increased the output of GHGs. You can either have cooler combustion and keep the emissions in the lower atmosphere or hotter combustion the increases emissions in the higher atmosphere.

OR

We can strip mine and use highly toxic processes in foreign countries to create solar panels and wind turbines and pollute our oceans. And use hydro to store energy and even out the load as wind and solar cannot operate without load balancing of some sort of energy storage option. Though dams have their pitfalls as well...

OR

We can go nuclear which has a smaller footprint than both of the two earlier options especially with reprocessing technologies and when fuel sources like thorium are integrated. But there is an irrational fear when it comes to nuclear mainly based in the uses at the end of WWII. However, as an energy source it is safer to wildlife, the environment, and humans when directly compared to the aforementioned options.

So clearly none of the answers above are acceptable... At least not in the pure sense that the environmental NGOs would like you to believe. Even clean technology is really dirty, especially due to the practices needed to manufacture the products.

Unfortunately there is no way to separate people making a profit from doing the right thing. I think that cap and trade is a ridiculous idea. We should never grant people the right to make money by selling the right to pollute. I've never known a business that didn't lie even if just to be able to compete with other businesses that lie.

The issue here is that people don't want to believe that we can cause climate change simply because if true the consequences will fall on someone else, and the solution is going to impinge on our freedom to do as we want and hit us in the wallet. This isn't the area where people make a profit by telling half truths. And no matter how much is or isn't lies it really doesn't change the affect of pollution.

Its not that people don't believe it could, its that people aren't willing to bankrupt themselves\economy when there is no proof that it does\is. On top of that, the skepticism is amplified by the obvious dishonesty in the GW campaign.

Its the same as saying that mathematically you know the exact percentage of the universe our solar system takes up, while readily admitting you don't now how big the universe is.

We are in agreement that stewardship is paramount and less pollution is better. I'm just of the opinion that a "the sky is falling" campaign of dishonesty isn't the way to convince a population that, while not climatologists, know the basic limitations of scientific historical speculation.

I think that cap and trade is a ridiculous idea. We should never grant people the right to make money by selling the right to pollute.

You realize it's the government selling the right to pollute not the companies forced to participate in the program or shut down operations.

I do not totally believe you understand the economic principles behind this type of program, nor do I believe all businesses lie. You have to realize a bulk of all business is small business and things are pretty transparent out there. Not to mention for larger business the regulatory requirements and laws that govern their operations make things like lies a big problem.

You are comparing a bunch of "scientists" trying to do a snow job on society without really understanding it themselves to a couple of guys on the street(or internet) just having a discussion. That is a stupid comparison.

If your doctor told you you had brain cancer and he had some great new treatment for you and had you go through it, bought himself a nice island somewhere warm from the proceeds off you then said "oh, you never had brain cancer, sorry"...then 10 years later said you had liver cancer and said he had some great new treatment for you.......What would you do?

The picture doesn't make me feel cool...but it does make me laugh.

How so? Rob's stance (the one he offered on this thread) seemed to be based on a study from the 80's. Train echoed Rob's sentiment without offering much more to the debate. So I don't seem how it is a stupid comparison at all. Maybe not a true apples to apples analogy, but definitely not an apples to oranges.

Your doctor analogy is just as bad though. Al Gore didn't need Inconvenient Truth to become rich. He was loaded well before that.

Al Gore didn't need Inconvenient Truth to become rich. He was loaded well before that.

He had less than $2mil when he was VP and now has $100mil plus the extra $100mil from his 20% of the sale of his green TV station to a network that is subsidized by oil money. "Loaded" is subjective I suppose.

He had less than $2mil when he was VP and now has $100mil plus the extra $100mil from his 20% of the sale of his green TV station to a network that is subsidized by oil money. "Loaded" is subjective I suppose.

"At 52, Gore has managed to become pretty wealthy--without trying. In his latest financial disclosures, he estimates his family's net worth at $1.4 million to $2.5 million. We've discovered that he and Tipper are also likely to receive millions in inheritances."

Of course the climate is changing, always has, always will. As to the question of whose fault, who cares, conservative principles and most conservatives at least at the core of their former (pre-christian right) philosophy has always been that of conservation. The left on the other side believe anything corporation-y is evil but fails to see the pitfalls of energy solutions like wind and solar while demonizing the intermediate solutions that guarantee a cleaner future and have in-fact reduced emissions by providing a clean and more economically feasible solution to coal (natural gas). However, bogus-science on both sides is funded by all types of organizations and corporations looking to gain or maintain a foothold in the marketplace.

I think a broadly supported principle of conservationism and trying to reduce our footprint through intelligent planning and technological advancement would be best but idiots from both sides of the spectrum inhibit this activity with their crap rhetoric.

"At 52, Gore has managed to become pretty wealthy--without trying. In his latest financial disclosures, he estimates his family's net worth at $1.4 million to $2.5 million. We've discovered that he and Tipper are also likely to receive millions in inheritances."

Anytime you have a million with an s, your loaded in my book.

Until you hit the 100 million mark you are rich, once you pass the 100 million mark you are wealthy and when you get to a billion you are loaded just an FYI

You realize it's the government selling the right to pollute not the companies forced to participate in the program or shut down operations.

Yes I do realize it's the govt. I also realize it was a program promoted by Obama. And I think it's a terrible idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by norcalrider

I do not totally believe you understand the economic principles behind this type of program, nor do I believe all businesses lie.

The lying part wasn't associated with cap and trade. It was more a generic comment about people making money not having anything to do with doing the right thing. And yes, I may not fully understand the economic principles behind cap and trade. But fundamentally it sounds like a bad idea to allow people to sell the right to pollute.

My biggest complaint is about people who simply declare that there is no way that man made climate change is happening.

Yes I do realize it's the govt. I also realize it was a program promoted by Obama. And I think it's a terrible idea.

...And yes, I may not fully understand the economic principles behind cap and trade. But fundamentally it sounds like a bad idea to allow people to sell the right to pollute.

It's the most economically efficient way to motivate change and innovation in emission heavy sectors. Direct regulations are created by ill-informed bureaucrats and starry-eyed envrions with no idea what processes and technologies are needed to achieve the arbitrary goals set forth. IN most cases the costs of direct regulations are astronomical for the benefits. Costs that make outsourcing costs more reasonable.

Not to mention the bad economy and displacement of coal by natural gas has basically achieved the emission reductions that were proposed during the waxman-markey proposal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly135

The lying part wasn't associated with cap and trade. It was more a generic comment about people making money not having anything to do with doing the right thing.

So everyone making money does the wrong thing... Bit too much of a blanket statement for me. Corporations act like corporations act, it's not evil or good but it's predictable. Lying comes with severe consequences for corporations or even the small proprietorship. I've never understood people who assign morality to entities. It's a business, it acts like a business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly135

My biggest complaint is about people who simply declare that there is no way that man made climate change is happening.

Climate change has always been happening and yes there is some anthroprogenic input but to the extent that the chicken little hockey stick crowd has exclaimed is just as overstated as those who deny. Both sides are wrong, neither is morally superior.

Lets all just look at this from a common sense stand point. If after what I say you still want to buy into the lie of global warming then that is your prerogative. First we are told that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. Let's just pretend that ridiculous number is true. Lets also forget that 40 years ago the scientists were telling us there would be another ice age because the planet was cooling.

If in fact the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and we have been able to accurately track the temperature around the globe for say 75 years. Do you think that a 75 year sample out of 4.6 billion is even close to a representative sample? It is so ultimately stupid and insane that it makes me want to kick Al Gores ass for being a lying ass all for the almighty dollar. Just like evolution is taught in every school text book global warming will be tossed down our throats the same way. When you repeat a lie over and over it ultimately becomes the truth by default. In Obamas 2nd term he said that climate change would be his top priority. It made me want to throw up. These clowns are pathetic and so is anyone that buys into this voodoo science.

You are attempting to lump several things together that have nothing to do with one another. I think even the Intelligent Design community would tell you to get lost. And are you 100% sure that your beliefs aren't just a "lie that has been repeated over and over"?

Look if Al Gore is involved it's a scam plain and simple. I know they say we can drill and get past temps yada yada I am just not convinced with all I know from my own investigating on so called science facts that I can take anything these guys say at face value. Another funny thing is in in the so called medieval warm period it was a warmer climate than it is now. Temperatures also fell starting in 1940 all the way to 1975 when the industrial revolution started and kept decreasing to 1975. In fact the temperature fell so much they started telling us another ice age was possible. The problem with this is the weather dropped when we were using leaving huge carbon footprints. From 1975 the temperature started to increase (remember these increases are barely measurable) when the sun was showing more sun spot activity. You can argue this stuff till the cows come home, it comes down to one thing - WHO DO YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE?

And for those who think I am anti science of course I'm not. I love science, but only when it's good science done correctly with no agenda behind it. Pure observable, testable factual data that can be looked at replicated and without dispute can be trusted and verified by multiple people in their field as being verifiable substantiated. Oh and by the way, That old book that I get discredited for still believing in, yeah it still has never been debunked or dis-proven although many a person has tried. The words within it's pages are still as relevant today as the day they were penned. The history written within it's pages can be substantiated by archaeological evidence. Pardon me if if I choose to believe our creator over his fallible creation when his word and their science disagree.

I had to read Gore's "Earth in Balance" in the mid-90s while in college. I remember one passage where he provided evidence of man-induced global warming by saying he was riding in a boat through the arctic and watched a chunk of a glacier fall into the ocean. Seriously? LOL.

Look, if you are dumb enough to believe this crap and have no comprehension of statistics have fun worrying about nothing. Most scientist agree the earth is getting warmer. All are using a small, insignificant data sampling which is basically meaningless in the big scheme of things. Also, there has been at least two major scandals involving scientist plotting to suppress conflicting data to keep this hoax alive. Sorry but real science doesn’t involve covering up data that isn’t favorable to your agenda.

... There are far more polar bears alive today than there were 40 years ago. ... In 1973, there was a global hunting ban. So once hunting was dramatically reduced, the population exploded. This is not to say that global warming is not real or is not a problem for the polar bears. But polar bear populations are large, and the truth is that we can't look at it as a monolithic population that is all going one way or another.

Look if Al Gore is involved it's a scam plain and simple. I know they say we can drill and get past temps yada yada I am just not convinced with all I know from my own investigating on so called science facts that I can take anything these guys say at face value. Another funny thing is in in the so called medieval warm period it was a warmer climate than it is now. Temperatures also fell starting in 1940 all the way to 1975 when the industrial revolution started and kept decreasing to 1975. In fact the temperature fell so much they started telling us another ice age was possible. The problem with this is the weather dropped when we were using leaving huge carbon footprints. From 1975 the temperature started to increase (remember these increases are barely measurable) when the sun was showing more sun spot activity. You can argue this stuff till the cows come home, it comes down to one thing - WHO DO YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE?

And for those who think I am anti science of course I'm not. I love science, but only when it's good science done correctly with no agenda behind it. Pure observable, testable factual data that can be looked at replicated and without dispute can be trusted and verified by multiple people in their field as being verifiable substantiated. Oh and by the way, That old book that I get discredited for still believing in, yeah it still has never been debunked or dis-proven although many a person has tried. The words within it's pages are still as relevant today as the day they were penned. The history written within it's pages can be substantiated by archaeological evidence. Pardon me if if I choose to believe our creator over his fallible creation when his word and their science disagree.

Not to change the subject too much, but the Bible says "Noah lived 950 years". That is easy to debunk whether you are a believer or not.

I would also argue it a bit peculiar considering life expectancy was much lower in Noah's day than it is today, that a man was able to live more than 10 times longer than today's life expectancy. I would also be curious how Noah was able to disseminate between say a male and female mosquito, flea, etc when loading up the ark with pairs of animals.

Actually as I was reading your last post I thought to myself, Jeremy is asking some very good questions. Those are exactly the questions i would ask. If you don't believe in the authoritative word of the biblical narrative then those questions are totally legit. On the other hand if you take the bible at face value and the flood story as true which i do, the Bible tells us that Noah didn't go out and collect the animals, birds insects etc.... They came to him. No science here just faith so i am not arguing this point at all. I was watching a documentary on the history channel a couple weeks ago and they were excavating a site in South Africa where there were stones quarried out of a mountain and carried more than 5 miles to where it lays today. The stone is so large they have no way to measure it's weight. The best estimate is that the stone weighs some where around 80 thousand tons. Our scientists and archaeological experts have no idea how this was done. We don't have a crane in the world that even comes close to lifting something so massive. Their best guesses were some sort of levitation or aliens did it. My best guess would be the fallen Angels that has sex with women who then produced hybrid humans of gargantuan size had something to do with it. Still not dealing with science here so don't blast me. The one thing that we do know is that ancient Samarian writings talk about the ananoki who came down form the sky and taught them things that were unknown. We have found incredible machinery from ancient times that leave experts scratching their heads wondering if they weren't actually a lot more advanced back then then we are today. There are ancient carvings of the solar system that show an exact diagram of how the planets are aligned, even pluto that we didn't even know about until recent times. How in the world did the ancients know? They have also found ancient maps that depict perfect replicas of coastal landscapes that would be impossible without having an image from high above the landscape. There are so many things we don't understand about the past. I think it's amazing to read and study. But getting back on topic, from a Biblical account these types of questions can be answered in the pages of the Bible. At least that is my take, I know it's not yours but i thought I would put in my 2 cents.

^It is easy to debunk a person living 950 years in a time when life expectancy was probably around 25. And the flood isn't mentioned in one book. There is a similar story in Greek mythology (most likely the inspiration for Noah's story). And I guess since the impossibility of a human being living 950 years isn't enough, let's look at the space needed for the animals onboard the ark:

"The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits."

With a cubit being about 18 inches long, the ark would be about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. Further, the Ark was to have three "stories" or decks. The total volume of the Ark would have been about 1.5 million cubic feet.

However, the space available assumes every cubic inch of space is utilized which is far from practical. There would need to be space to get at the animals to feed them and for head room, breathing room or ventilation, naturally wasted or unused space would exist, exercise space would be needed, etc. Also the decks and beams would consume space. We thus could conservatively reduce the available space on the ark by one fifth giving about 1.2 million cubic feet of usable storage space.

Noah was commanded to bring "two" of every animal and "creeping thing" into the ark, but of "every clean beast," and of the "fowls of the air" he was to bring in by "sevens" (Genesis 7:2-3).(18) There currently exists 200,000 species of animals, over 900,000 species of insects, and about 450,000 species of plants.(19) We could estimate the number of "clean" animals along with all the birds to be about one sixth of the animals or 33,000 in number. Thus Noah would have needed room for 231,000 "clean" animals (7 x 33,000), 334,000 "unclean" animals (2 x 167,000),and 1,800,000 insects (2 x 900,000).

A squirrel or rabbit would need about 3 cubic feet of space. As for an elephant, it would need about 1,400 cubic feet of space. A turkey would need about 9 cubic feet, a 15 foot crocodile and a 600 lb. gorilla each require over 140 cubic feet of space. A fox would take up about 10 cubic feet, a lion 120, and a 20 foot tall giraffe would require 900 cubic feet of space. We could justly figure 10 cubic feet of space per animal on the average, and about .05 cubic foot of space for insects (this would also include the space needed for their stalls, cages, containers, etc.).

We have to also consider food for the animals which God told Noah to bring on the Ark (Genesis 6:21). Since Noah and the animals were in the Ark just over a year, there would have to be storage space for one year's supply of food. On the average, a person can eat about 1,300 pounds of food a year which is about 7 times his weight in food. An elephant can eat about 60,000 lbs. of food a year which is 7 to 8 times its weight. The average ox or cow can consume about 24,000 lbs. of food a year which is about 14 times its weight. One wolf can eat a sheep a week or 52 sheep a year which is about 20 times its weight while a lion can eat about 35 times its weight. A shrew can eat several hundred times its weight in a year. Since the weight of many types of food, such as hay, is less dense than body weight they would occupy much more space. It would be more than fair then to consider 8 times the space needed on the average for food storage for each animal and insect. Based on this, the following table represents the space needed for a one year voyage:

With only 1.2 million cubic feet available on the Ark, we can see from these figures that Noah would have needed at least 43 arks to accomplish the job of storing all the animals and their required food. This, of course, does not take into consideration the food needed to keep the animals alive (such as sheep) for the meat eaters (such as wolves). It does not consider plants, most of which could never survive a worldwide flood. It does not consider reproduction of animals. It does not consider water for drinking and bathing. Nor does it consider all the species that have become extinct since Noah's time. The need for 100 Arks would be a more likely figure."

The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.

Tabulating the total volume is fair enough, since this shows that there would be plenty of room on the Ark for the animals with plenty left over for food, range etc. It would be possible to stack cages, with food on top or nearby (to minimize the amount of food carrying the humans had to do), to fill up more of the Ark space, while still allowing plenty of room for gaps for air circulation. We are discussing an emergency situation, not necessarily luxury accommodation. Although there is plenty of room for exercise, skeptics have overstated animals’ needs for exercise anyway.

Even if we don’t allow stacking one cage on top of another to save floor space, there would be no problem. Woodmorappe shows from standard recommended floor space requirements for animals that all of them together would have needed less than half the available floor space of the Ark’s three decks. This arrangement allows for the maximum amount of food and water storage on top of the cages close to the animals.

Food Requirements
The Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food. Perhaps Noah fed the cattle mainly on grain, plus some hay for fibre. Woodmorappe calculated that the volume of foodstuffs would have been only about 15 % of the Ark’s total volume. Drinking water would only have taken up 9.4% of the volume. This volume would be reduced further if rainwater was collected and piped into troughs.

Excretory requirements

It is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages every morning. Possibly they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where the manure could fall away from the animals and be flushed away (plenty of water around!) or destroyed by vermicomposting (composting by worms) which would also provide earthworms as a food source. Very deep bedding can sometimes last for a year without needing a change. Absorbent material (e.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and especially peat moss) would reduce the moisture content and hence the odour.

Hibernation
The space, feeding and excretory requirements were adequate even if the animals had normal day/night sleeping cycles. But hibernation is a possibility which would reduce these requirements even more. It is true that the Bible does not mention it, but it does not rule it out either. Some creationists suggest that God created the hibernation instinct for the animals on the Ark, but we should not be dogmatic either way.

Some skeptics argue that food taken on board rules out hibernation, but this is not so. Hibernating animals do not sleep all winter, despite popular portrayals, so they would still need food occasionally.

Conclusion

This article has shown that the Bible can be trusted on testable matters like Noah’s Ark. Many Christians believe that the Bible can only be trusted on matters of faith and morals, not scientific matters. But we should consider what Jesus Christ Himself told Nicodemus (John 3:12): ‘If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?’

Similarly, if the Scriptures can be wrong on testable matters such as geography, history and science, why should they be trusted on matters like the nature of God and life after death, which are not open to empirical testing? Hence Christians should ‘but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect’ (1 Peter 3:15), when skeptics claim that the Bible conflicts with known ‘scientific facts’.

Christians would be able to follow this command and answer skeptics’ anti–Ark arguments effectively, if they read John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility Study. This remarkable book is the most complete analysis ever published regarding the gathering of animals to the Ark, provisions for their care and feeding, and the subsequent dispersion. For example, some skeptics have claimed that the post-Flood ground would be too salty for plants to grow. Woodmorappe points out that salt can be readily leached out by rainwater.

Woodmorappe has devoted seven years to this scholarly, systematic answer to virtually all the anti–Ark arguments, alleged difficulties with the Biblical account, and other relevant questions. Nothing else like this has ever been written before—a powerful vindication of the Genesis Ark account.

Ah, so all it takes to debunk a story from pre-history is a "probably" statement? Gotcha.

DEBUNK

Jason, I know you have intelligence (judging by your other posts), so let's leave the adolescent-style arguing to kids. If we were disputing a difference of say 1, 5, 10, 25, even 75 years, than yes attack all you want on my use of the word "probably" (and there is historical and biological evidence that suggests my ~25 age is reasonable). We are talking centuries of difference, more than three times longer since the US fought for independence from England.

Jason, I know you have intelligence (judging by your other posts), so let's leave the adolescent-style arguing to kids. If we were disputing a difference of say 1, 5, 10, 25, even 75 years, than yes attack all you want on my use of the word "probably" (and there is historical and biological evidence that suggests my ~25 age is reasonable). We are talking centuries of difference, more than three times longer since the US fought for independence from England.

youre missing the point. Its a story\myth\legend, of a time when the environment was so different that people lived hundreds of years and there was enough water in the atmosphere to flood the entire planet. There is no proof that it is real, and is simply believed by people on faith alone. To debunk it would be to provide proof that it didnt happen. Because of the nature of such a story, this proof does not exist, and therefore cannot be "debunked". if there is no certainty Noah even existed, how can you debunk the single account of age?

He can't it's impossible. It's a matter of faith, you either believe it or you don't. You either believe Jesus is who he says he was or you don't. We know a man named Jesus lived, we know that there were over 500 witnesses who claimed to have seen his Resurrection. In a court of law 2 eye witness accounts are all that is needed to convict someone. I highly doubt if his disciples didn't see him after his crucifiction they would not have proclaimed the gospel facing persecution and ultimately painful deaths. Nobody is going to do that for something they know is an out right lie. We know there is a huge man made structure at about the 14000 foot level on Mount Ararat where the Bible says the boat landed. (Mountains of Ararat) We have found huge anchor stones on the mountain which depict 8 crosses which would have represented the 8 people on the ark. Honestly i think it's fascinating., I love history and would love to travel to the holy land and walk the streets that Jesus walked.. As far as this vessel on Mount Ararat, i can't say 100% that it is Noahs ark, it's burried under 40 feet of ice. It does however raise the question, what is it? and how did it get so high up on the mountain? It's dimmentions are very close to that of the dimensions given in the Bible and they have found petrified wood that they feel dates back about 4500 years which would fit the biblical story. Just saying, it is a possibly

He can't it's impossible. It's a matter of faith, you either believe it or you don't. You either believe Jesus is who he says he was or you don't. We know a man named Jesus lived, we know that there were over 500 witnesses who claimed to have seen his Resurrection. In a court of law 2 eye witness accounts are all that is needed to convict someone. I highly doubt if his disciples didn't see him after his crucifiction they would not have proclaimed the gospel facing persecution and ultimately painful deaths. Nobody is going to do that for something they know is an out right lie. We know there is a huge man made structure at about the 14000 foot level on Mount Ararat where the Bible says the boat landed. (Mountains of Ararat) We have found huge anchor stones on the mountain which depict 8 crosses which would have represented the 8 people on the ark. Honestly i think it's fascinating., I love history and would love to travel to the holy land and walk the streets that Jesus walked.. As far as this vessel on Mount Ararat, i can't say 100% that it is Noahs ark, it's burried under 40 feet of ice. It does however raise the question, what is it? and how did it get so high up on the mountain? It's dimmentions are very close to that of the dimensions given in the Bible and they have found petrified wood that they feel dates back about 4500 years which would fit the biblical story. Just saying, it is a possibly

Look, I never said the entire Bible was true (I believe that some parts are true).

The Mt. Ararat site is almost certainly a hoax (read the report from the Dr. that was associated with NAMI along with many of the workers that were at the site).

Bret I just read though some of the articles you just talked about and found nothing that refutes that the site is not Noah's Ark. Just the usual crap trying to smear peoples name to make them look less credible etc.... There is never anything concrete from you guys. It always comes down to who you will believe. Do you want to believe there is no God? That's fine I wont try and convince you but I will ask you a question. How much do you think you know about the world? I mean on every subject? The universe etc... Maybe less then 1% of all the knowledge in the world? Ok ok for arguments sake and considering you are one of those really intelligent liberals and I am one of those super ignorant Christians lets say you know about 20% off all the worlds knowledge. Just so you know that would be one smart guy but I'm giving you that one. Do you think that it's possible that in that 80% you don't know a thing about, God could exist?

But let me let you in on a little secret, there are plenty of liberals that believe in god and there are plenty of conservatives that are atheists. I don't see why religion has anything to do with political affiliation.